DMusic.com | for indie musicians and fans | Free MP3 music downloads - Forums: The General Forum: Only in America

Forums > The General Forum

Only in America

Ghostie	Date: April 30, 2009 @ 10:21 AM No offense to my Georgia friends, but this cracked me up http://rawstory.com/08/blog/2009/04/30/candidate-for-georgia-governorship-says-hed-kill-his-own-son-to-secede/
BOWILLIE	Date: April 30, 2009 @ 10:28 AM kill the son but spare his sex mule..my god im moving to indiana
Mojosnake	Date: April 30, 2009 @ 10:29 AM must be the heat ....
BOWILLIE	Date: April 30, 2009 @ 10:32 AM i know a few who would vote for him..just on his mule docket
Ghostie	Date: April 30, 2009 @ 10:40 AM Indiana is no better.. we had a young man get arrest for having sex with a horse .. course he had to use a box to stand on
vilifiend	Date: April 30, 2009 @ 10:55 AM good times.
Guest	Date: April 30, 2009 @ 10:56 AM Remember that guy with the picnic table?
Guest	Date: April 30, 2009 @ 11:26 AM mule docket?
ChillinBuzz	Date: April 30, 2009 @ 11:46 AM On 30th Apr 2012, vilifiend said: good times. I know who NOT to hire when I get my own farm then... Oh wait, there are animals in this thread - Where's Mojo and Moam?
Mojosnake	Date: April 30, 2009 @ 11:50 AM accounted for Baaaa!!!!
GTOriginal	Date: April 30, 2009 @ 7:00 PM Where's the mother in all this? Oh wait, it's the mule! HeeeHaawww! Three cheers for Burro Boy! Hip hip...
ChillinBuzz	Date: April 30, 2009 @ 7:56 PM "...God’s plan to protect himself..." So much for being the all powerful, all knowing almighty if he has to protect himself... Probably from the nutjob in the article. "When you grow up on a farm in Georgia, your first girlfriend is a mule," he said, adding, "You experiment with anything that moves when you are growing up sexually." Moam, you wouldn't happen to be this lunatic's SON would you?
BOWILLIE	Date: April 30, 2009 @ 9:17 PM i dont even think a knot hole in a georgia pine tree would be safe around him
BOWILLIE	Date: April 30, 2009 @ 9:18 PM and thats why i got wings..its just not safe on a farm in georgia
imemine	Date: April 30, 2009 @ 9:31 PM Admit it Bo------you have political aspirations in Georgia!
Mojosnake	Date: April 30, 2009 @ 9:49 PM On 30th Apr 2012, BOWILLIE said: i dont even think a knot hole in a georgia pine tree would be safe around him one time in the shower moam used my inner knee to "experiment sexually" must say I think we both got something out of the experience buzz seemed to enjoy the sight and saint ...... well saint really was the one who started the chicken thing ... oh oh oh you meant the guy in georgia didnt you bo ... sorry this all just bring back such memories .....
ChillinBuzz	Date: April 30, 2009 @ 10:27 PM
Guest	Date: April 30, 2009 @ 11:15 PM 3 and counting
Guest	Date: May 1, 2009 @ 1:34 AM i know a few who would vote for him..just on his mule docket i bet u voted for him
Guest	Date: May 1, 2009 @ 1:35 AM ooo eck my quote was pickleized
Mojosnake	Date: May 1, 2009 @ 7:58 AM On 30th Apr 2012, ChillinBuzz said: see the smiley behind the curtain .. he remembers ...
zedsalt	Date: May 1, 2009 @ 11:00 AM On 30th Apr 2012, Ghostie said: Indiana is no better.. we had a young man get arrest for having sex with a horse .. course he had to use a box to stand on That's how they caught him; just once, he forgot to return the crate to the tack pen when he was done. Up to that point, the horse's owner...a former dogcatcher who used to go about his business sporting a pair of pearl-handled revolvers...had noticed that something didn't seem right about the stable on more than one occasion, but the obviously out-of-place crate was what made him install a security camera.
ShadowMom	Date: May 1, 2009 @ 11:32 AM No man has a good enough memory to be a good liar.... I think that's how it goes. But I do forget things these days. However, that does explain how politicians constantly seem to change what they say, said, meant to say, etc.
GTOriginal	Date: May 1, 2009 @ 12:13 PM Ha! That is simply not true, I have the mind of a steel... wait a second... brb... . . . OK what were we talking about again?
AbortiveMind	Date: May 1, 2009 @ 12:29 PM I'm probably gonna have half of the Earth fall upon my head but ... religious people are the most dangerous species on earth I'm not kidding ... And before you attack me FREEDOM OF SPEECH YO!
ChillinBuzz	Date: May 1, 2009 @ 5:38 PM Anyone can be a good liar. WRITE IT ALL DOWN! Oops... Giving away the secrets now. Damn that shower scene
zedsalt	Date: May 2, 2009 @ 9:57 AM On 1st May 2012, AbortiveMind said: I'm probably gonna have half of the Earth fall upon my head but ... religious people are the most dangerous species on earth I'm not kidding ... And before you attack me FREEDOM OF SPEECH YO! I couldn't agree with you more. Organized religion has a way of turning its followers into the EXACT opposite of actually, honestly, purely "religious".
sinai	Date: May 3, 2009 @ 1:17 AM but there IS free bread and wine. even churches need punch and pie to pad out the pews.
SimonWaldram	Date: May 3, 2009 @ 6:51 AM “When you grow up on a farm in Georgia, your first girlfriend is a mule.” Hahahaha! Jesus H. Cornflakes! And what's this wackjobs name? Neil Horsley!
GeneHilbert	Date: May 3, 2009 @ 11:17 AM On 1st May 2012, AbortiveMind said: I'm probably gonna have half of the Earth fall upon my head but ... religious people are the most dangerous species on earth I'm not kidding ... And before you attack me FREEDOM OF SPEECH YO! Agreed..... let's outlaw fanatical religions. Lets start with Islam.
ShadowMom	Date: May 3, 2009 @ 12:54 PM "Why don't you be like me? Why don't you stop and see? Why don't you hate who I hate, Kill who I kill to be free." So, Gene, why don't you like all the Bill of Rights?
ChillinBuzz	Date: May 3, 2009 @ 9:37 PM On 3rd May 2012, GeneHilbert said: Agreed..... let's outlaw fanatical religions. Lets start with Islam. Followed closely by Christianity.
zedsalt	Date: May 4, 2009 @ 9:25 AM That would be putting the cart before the horse, wouldn't it? I mean, without the horrible treatment they received at the hands of people of other "faiths" (words like "faith" and "religion" call for quotation marks when they get perverted this way), could there have ever been such a thing as "Muslim extremism"? Could Muslim extremism survive without its underdog status? Impossible. No, I'm going to go back to the idea (the not-at-all serious, impractical idea...that is what we're doing here, right? Talking about silly, impractical solutions to a one of the world's worst problems?) of not allowing buildings to be devoted to religions. That's when they usually start getting away from their core values- when they set aside a building as a place of worship.
zedsalt	Date: May 4, 2009 @ 9:44 AM "I'll take 'Where on the Web?' for $5,000, Alex." "Secession by a U.S. state, prolicide, zooerastia, sex with a picnic table, sex with a pine tree, a flying pig, kneejoint sex, and the dangers of religious extremism" "Um, that would have to be, 'what is a DMusic thread?', Alex".
GeneHilbert	Date: May 4, 2009 @ 10:46 AM On 3rd May 2012, ShadowMom said: [center] "The Bill OF Rights" is perfect
GeneHilbert	Date: May 4, 2009 @ 11:47 AM Let me clarify. My statement was rhetorical. "cart before the horse"..... No, I don't see televangelist cutting off heads of non-believers. I see most putting down Christianity and making fun of it. Fair enough - you can say what you want. The fore mentioned "The Bill OF Rights" guarantees that right of expression. Don’t expect that kind of religious freedom or tolerance in the middle east or other parts of the world. However our country is based around Judeo-Christian beliefs (regardless what Obama believes), and that our founding fathers believed we should have these debates, and here we are. But let’s call a spade a spade. I see no Christian advocating the complete annihilation of Israel or any other religion or race for that matter. I don’t see Christian’s advocating killing of nonbelievers as part of their religious doctrine which the Koran clearly states. Although most Muslims are peace loving - there are the fringe that corrupt the religion for their own violent and contemptible purposes. This is not exclusive, all religions have been guilty of that at one time or another - bigotry abounds, but that doesn’t justify or excuse the practice. If you find it acceptable to advocate hate, reproach and the destruction of Christianity, its followers and teachers you are no different than any other bigot you supposedly deplore. If you have a soul, you have a cancer in it. But that is your right to believe what you will, your right of expression; that is your right in the free world to freedom of speech.
zedsalt	Date: May 5, 2009 @ 9:27 AM On 4th May 2012, GeneHilbert said: Let me clarify. My statement was rhetorical. Well, yeah, I think we all "got" that, Geno. On 4th May 2012, GeneHilbert said: "cart before the horse"..... No, I don't see televangelist cutting off heads of non-believers. Y'know, I'd just bet you're right. Even though the time period we're talking about...the era when Muslims were subjected to horrible torture at the hands of people of other faiths who had a "convert 'em or kill 'em" attitude and a willingness to use tactics like genocide-via-rape, while the Muslims maintained a policy of religious tolerance every time and everywhere Islam was the political ruling faith...even though that era was centuries long, it did start in the early 7th Century. I figure there was not a single televangelist...or any other television personality, for that matter...going around decapitating people in the 610s-620s to 1100s AD. On 4th May 2012, GeneHilbert said: I see most putting down Christianity and making fun of it. Well, at least nobody did it more than once in this thread, and the one time it did happen, it was a brief response pointing out the fact that Christianity has no less of a fanatical nature than any other major faith. On 4th May 2012, GeneHilbert said: However our country is based around Judeo-Christian beliefs Soon after the founding of our nation, Thomas Jefferson was careful to remind the leaders of Muslim nations that not one of the founders of the U.S. believed the morality of the founding principles was exclusively Christian, and that "The United States of America is not a Christian nation". On 4th May 2012, GeneHilbert said: If you find it acceptable to advocate hate, reproach and the destruction of Christianity, its followers and teachers... No, I don't find that attitude toward any religion acceptable, even rhetorically.
Mojosnake	Date: May 5, 2009 @ 10:09 AM oh my ... yup ... Only in America ....
AbortiveMind	Date: May 5, 2009 @ 2:15 PM On 4th May 2012, GeneHilbert said: I don’t see Christian’s advocating killing of nonbelievers as part of their religious doctrine which the Koran clearly states. Having the Coran, and having muslim family (of which my uncle is probably somewhere on the edge of being extreme muslim and a muslim extremist ), I for one can tell you that it is not "clearly" stated in the Coran. It's a part of the extremist doctrine The Coran however states something along the lines of "the people of the sacred land will take over" yadda yadda somefin somefin ... which the muslims have interpreted as the Jews (hence why the tensions). But there is no such thing as killing non-muslim believers. This is the appendix made by those nutcases, who don't have the balls to bomb their own asses to those 47 virgins
ChillinBuzz	Date: May 5, 2009 @ 11:37 PM Rightly said, Borty... Unfortunately some people take what the media and other "sources" at face value without really looking into it. The passages that a certain user above has been told exist are not in the original Quran (or whichever way it wants to be spelt) - Extremists took them and interpreted them their own way - a way that, well, was extreme of course. Don't tell me the Bible as it stands now is anything like the original book though, the one we were made to read at my school 20 years ago seems to be differing in many places from the one I constantly hear being preached across the airwaves today... And if Christians didn't have extremists either then I guess the Westboro Baptist Church is a figment of our imagination... Maybe the Taliban's a myth too huh? One more note - Just because one religion may have more blood on its hands, doesn't mean the other is any less innocent of killing. (MY source - one of my ex gfs was Muslim and she was a damn sight more decent than a lot of people I know)
Distilled1	Date: May 5, 2009 @ 11:42 PM I say lets blame it all on the Mormons man talk about extreme! but I digress "I do^insert for me (I may)end inert^ not agree with what you have to say, but I'll defend to the death your right to say it." ~Voltaire
ChillinBuzz	Date: May 5, 2009 @ 11:50 PM This comment is taken from a conversation I had with some people back at Christmas - Funnily enough the whole debate was started by a guy who called himself a "non-practicing Jew"... So imagine a Jew, a Muslim and an Atheist in the same room... ----------------- This is the first verse used in Fitna to discredit the holy quran. Translation is by yusufali, the one most muslims that cant read arabic accepts. 008.060 YUSUFALI: Against them make ready your strength to the utmost of your power, including steeds of war, to strike terror into (the hearts of) the enemies, of Allah and your enemies, and others besides, whom ye may not know, but whom Allah doth know. Whatever ye shall spend in the cause of Allah, shall be repaid unto you, and ye shall not be treated unjustly. that does sound like quran is saying "kill them all" this might even be translated by using different words to exaggerate the drama or the gore factor. In reality this verse was sent to Muhammad during a war. I think Muhammad was asking god, what should we do if "others" come to attack them. Here's the stinker. When ever people quote me this passage (yes its a famous one) they never actually read the quran, They got this passage from books by people who are anti islam or emails from haters, instigators. Those people would not really read the quran to find for their own. Now if they actually did.... 008.061 YUSUFALI: But if the enemy incline towards peace, do thou (also) incline towards peace, and trust in Allah: for He is One that heareth and knoweth (all things). The verse that comes right after that says basically if they want peace, you give them peace. This passage would not be in articles, movies, emails to defame islam. Because any logical reader who reads this second passage would then understand that muslims are only told to fight only when they are forced to. When the other side wants peace, we are obligated to quran's command to give them peace. I've studied all the verses that others quote from the quran to display that muslims are bad. That is why I am confident enough to have an open challenge to anyone who said they could find a verse in the quran that promotes violence because everytime they quote a verse, its usually out of context. I just have to show the verse above or below the quoted verse to show that no islam is not about terrorism. its about peace. Not to worry, even muslims can misread the quran. Thats how we have terrorist. If fundamentalist mean we practice islam by the book. YES im a fundamentalist. media twisted the word fundamentalist to terrorist. i think its because of this misunderstanding of the quran. If every muslims are actually fundamentalist (meaning to follow the fundamentals of the quran) then things like this could not have happened. The word fundamentalist turned into a bad word because in my opinion nobody else can fundamentalist of their religion. Thats a different topic entirely but to me, if anyone follows the fundamentals in the quran, they will be ok. Its the "non-fundamentals" you should worry about. They twist the quran, read it differently, and use islam as an excuse for their greed. They would say something like "support us support islam" many would be fooled thinking they are supporting islam when in fact they are supporting a terrorist sec. ------------ Here's something for the extremist thought: "It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle, than for a rich man to enter into the kingdom of God" (Matthew 19:24) So why do television Evangelists, self appointed spokespersons for God, intimidate and scare people into giving their money to them if being rich would hinder their ability to enter Heaven?
zedsalt	Date: May 6, 2009 @ 10:10 AM On 5th May 2012, Distilled1 said: I say lets blame it all on the Mormons man talk about extreme! As long as we're doing it online, let's go after the Old Order Amish instead. I mean, not only are they more extreme than the Mormons (o.k., so neither are known to be particularly violent, but what the hey?), how likely are the Amish to even hear that we're doing it? So, to you, you people without zippers in your pants! One of the most beautiful aspects of Islam...and one that makes the faith so ripe for perversion...is the dogma that says that every individual Muslim is supposed to translate the Quran for himself/herself (the inclusion of "herself" is one of the most hotly-debated topics regarding the translation/interpretation process). It's not a matter of "how it wants to be spelt", Chill'; it's however you want to spell it (or, more accurately, how you believe it should be spelled). And one of the most basic tenets of the faith is that NO ONE ON EARTH can tell you you're wrong, not without sinning against Islam. And I believe that's where one will find the Truth in any religion: in its absolute most basic tenets. Does killing any and all of your neighbors who are of a different faith seem contrary to most of the teachings of your religion? No? THEN DON'T DO IT! Does prohibiting homosexuals from marrying seem a lot less sweet, kind, and compassionate than allowing it and wishing them well? No? THEN DON'T STAND THERE AND TELL PEREZ FREAKIN' HILTON, OF ALL PEOPLE, THAT YOU BELIEVE ONLY "MARRIAGE BETWEEN OPPOSITES" SHOULD BE LEGAL! A friend of mine, an agnostic, I think, said the entire Bible could be condensed into two words: "Be nice." I think the same could be said of the Quran, the Vedas, etc., etc., etc.
zedsalt	Date: May 6, 2009 @ 10:13 AM And how beautifully appropriate is it that both "spelt" and "spelled" are acceptable spellings?
ChillinBuzz	Date: May 6, 2009 @ 10:35 AM Siht happens and I'll live, mister antonymous My point was that the Quran seems to have several spellings and all of those seem quite acceptable... So anyway... If I went up to a Christian, one really dedicated to his faith (and whether we decide to argue on where to draw the extremist line later, it's irrelevent right now) and I say to him "You're wrong, your God is a lie and your faith is a violent, misinterpreted abuse of control over people" that most of them would simply turn around and say, "Fair enough"? I don't think so.
Distilled1	Date: May 6, 2009 @ 11:10 AM in the words of a movie PRes. (although be it from a farce of a movie...) "Be excellent to each other. And... PARTY ON, DUDES! " that's what every stinking religion says weather people want to interpret it that way or not and, IMHO they all screw it up
sinai	Date: May 7, 2009 @ 3:48 AM be spiritual, fuck religion.
Mojosnake	Date: May 7, 2009 @ 8:04 AM On 7th May 2012, sinai said: be spiritual, fuck religion. AGREED!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
zedsalt	Date: May 7, 2009 @ 10:04 AM I often say that's precisely my attitude...I just tend to say it with my usual grandiloquence and over-wordiness, a bunch of stuff about how personal I think faith should be, blah diddy blah blah blah... On 6th May 2012, ChillinBuzz said: Siht happens and I'll live, mister antonymous My point was that the Quran seems to have several spellings and all of those seem quite acceptable.. I was serious when I said I thought that there is no single "proper" spelling, and that fact is wonderful. Heck, for that matter, I was serious when I said that I thought it was beautiful that the same could be said of "spelt" and "spelled". I am right about that, aren't I? That both are correct? Dagnabbit, now I'm going to have get out the Websters and make sure... Yeah, neither is really a colloquialism or a regionalism or whatever, and that's beautiful. No, if anything in your informative and well-worded post got me thinking about the distillation of organized religion down to its most basic elements, it was your use of the word "fundamentalist". It reminded me of the sad irony of the fact that the people going around calling themselves "fundamentalists" seem to have the weakest grasp of the fundamentals of their faiths ("faiths", plural, as in, I see it in all of the world's major organized religions).
ChillinBuzz	Date: May 7, 2009 @ 1:13 PM You know, it's difficult to tell when someone's being sarcastic or not... But eh, c'est la vie. Can I speak in French without anyone getting on a ignorant bigoted hate mission? And I didn't check the dictionary for bigoted if it's wrong. Also, I didn't personally use the word, it was in the conversation I quoted and part of the Muslim side of it, which in itself was qupted as a retort for the ignorant one-sided commentary prior to it. I don't follow a religion, I think God is a fantasy - A good one at that - but if people want to follow it, that's up to them. I don't think any different of them... Unless of course they start spouting a load of one-sided shit about a subject they don't care to research or blindly believe a biased media version of. That wasn't aimed at anyone in particular - I've run into this line of thinking in plenty of other places and in almost every case, the "research" has come from an anti-Muslim set of sites or from a tv station that might as well broadcast to the world that it looks down on pretty much anything between +5 and +12 GMT timezones (not an accurate description but pointing in a general direction).
ChillinBuzz	Date: May 7, 2009 @ 1:14 PM "qupted."
GTOriginal	Date: May 7, 2009 @ 1:35 PM I still call them "Freedom Fries" to this day. Waitresses don't know what the hell I'm talking about.
ChillinBuzz	Date: May 7, 2009 @ 1:45 PM I can't see how eating a chip/fry has anything to do with freedom, all I see is a bit of petty arguing between two countries who should BOTH know better, instead as a protest one of them changes the name of a food. Wouldn't it have been cheaper to just nuke them instead? Bad joke. Like religions really.
GTOriginal	Date: May 7, 2009 @ 2:08 PM Let's get something straight - When I say "fry" you hear "chip" and when I say "chip" you hear "crisp". I don't know why the hell they call the American language "English". It's all so confusing, and I'm really pissed about it. Of course when I say "pissed" you hear "drunk" but I mean "angry". My first judo teacher Nagayasu Ogasarawa was easier to understand, and he did not speak a word of either Englishese...
ChillinBuzz	Date: May 7, 2009 @ 2:18 PM "Pissed" as a term for being angry has started catching on over here... It's quite depressing really but then the language has been on a downhill slope for ages. I learned to use the two different sets of words depending on who I was talking to in private but then I started thinking, "Why am I changing the way I speak my language when nobody else is making an effort?"... So I vote that English should be abolished and in its place we should have LOLcat speech. That way, we can typo until the cows come home and we'd still understand what the heck was being said... And grammar nazis could find somethin betta ta doo wid der lifes lolz.
Mojosnake	Date: May 7, 2009 @ 9:56 PM at the both of ya
GTOriginal	Date: May 8, 2009 @ 12:13 AM That would work great until somebody said Yo wotcha say we git pist n hav sum crisps
ChillinBuzz	Date: May 8, 2009 @ 4:13 PM In either case, that would sound like a great opportunity for everyone involved to get blind stinking drunk, absorb some chemicals you couldn't even pronounce when sober and wake up in someone else's bed.
zedsalt	Date: May 9, 2009 @ 9:33 AM Pfft! Like we need an excuse for that!
ChillinBuzz	Date: May 9, 2009 @ 4:56 PM I didn't say excuse, I said opportunity. Goddamnit, I really want some LSD now.
laughingdove	Date: June 23, 2009 @ 12:31 AM one mans opportunity is another mans excuse.
ChillinBuzz	Date: June 23, 2009 @ 2:42 PM On 23rd Jun 2012, laughingdove said: one mans opportunity is another mans excuse. Could be. Then I could've said "One man's shit is another man's fortune" and we could still make something from that too. Like more shit. Are you bringing some LSD then? Can't think of any other reason why this was brought back to life.
GeneHilbert	Date: June 23, 2009 @ 11:35 PM LA zoo searches for new simians after monkey snub No Money for Firemen, Police, Teachers, but 7 million for Monkeys - Yes We Can http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5jDn98oEgzzqz1G-TDi1ckCdkxzcAD98OPORO0
zedsalt	Date: June 24, 2009 @ 10:13 AM I have to admit that at first, I thought this just HAD to be a story from The Onion or something. Blue-faced, blonde-haired, snub-nosed monkeys? Really? Yeah, as it turns out, really. The traditional reward for an American mayor who kisses China's butt is the loan of a panda or two to the local zoo. This story makes me wonder what Mayor Hahn did to merit the gift of these much rarer critters. And what IS it with the Democrats and the Chinese? Still, it is another Dem in office while the offer is being rescinded. Now, if things change regarding the monkeys now that Villaraigosa (spelling?) has said he won't be running for Governor...well, o.k., I'm not sure what that would imply, exactly, but it would darn sure be interesting. I'm with Gene on this one. Even though they are dangerously stupid, viciously violent creatures known to attack their enemies by throwing their feces at them, the LA police still deserve more public funding than the monkeys.
ChillinBuzz	Date: June 24, 2009 @ 8:47 PM On 23rd Jun 2012, GeneHilbert said: LA zoo searches for new simians after monkey snub No Money for Firemen, Police, Teachers, but 7 million for Monkeys - Yes We Can http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5jDn98oEgzzqz1G-TDi1ckCdkxzcAD98OPORO0 "No you can't".
sinai	Date: June 24, 2009 @ 8:53 PM they can always put up some traffic cameras. our local police department bought dodge chargers as cruisers using camera money
zedsalt	Date: June 25, 2009 @ 9:38 AM We have a town nearby which is notorious for using the small stretch of US30 which runs alongside their fair city as a speedtrap. Oh, I'm sure the tickets are legit', and there are two hills which provide very tempting cover, but at one time, they used to publish their town court* proceedings in a column beside the county court list in the newspaper, and they often tried more total cases than the county. Sinai's post made me think of them because they, too, drive shiny black Chargers. O.k., so what's with the Republican Governors and sex scandals? Sheesh! It's getting so there's no such thing as traditional partisan scandals anymore! *-To the best of my knowledge, this town of about 1,200 people is the only town in the county with its own court. I'm pretty sure the county seat (with a population of about 12,000) doesn't have one.
GeneHilbert	Date: June 25, 2009 @ 3:07 PM "so what's with the Republican Governors and sex scandals". I personally think the guy (singular) is a scumbag and feel for his wife and kids. His political career is essentially over. Unlike the dems who most expect to be adulterous. (Clinton, Edwards, Spitzer, Frank & male escorts) come to mind - way to avoid mentioning them Zedlot. One thing I can say is that he had a wife, and a latin lover.... Not to damn shabby on the Stud-O-Meter. Unlike yourself who spends his nights whacking off to the centerfold of the newest edition of Barnyard Heifer.
zedsalt	Date: June 26, 2009 @ 10:04 AM Superhuman selective ignorance on proud display yet again in the DM forums...I say that sex scandals are TRADITIONALLY the milieu of the DEMOCRATIC PARTY, and Geno says that I "avoid(ed) mentioning"...which party's recent sex scandals? ...oh, yeah, THE DEMOCRATS! That's right up there with that "make English the official American language" conference, where all the speakers did their thing under a banner on which "Conference" was misspelled. Speaking of selective ignorance, maybe you could refresh my memory for me, What political offices do Clinton, Edwards, and Spitzer currently hold? Who is Barney Frank marrried to? Or are you saying he was romantically and/or sexually involved with someone who was married? That's still the definition of "adultery", right? And I've GOT to disagree with you about the idea that a guy who cheats on his wife should be admired, if his partner in the adultery is from someplace exotic. Nope. Sorry. I still think of it as "damn shabby". And thanks for educating me once again. Who knew there was a magazine for cattle-loving zoophiles? I mean, besides Gene Hilbert?
ChillinBuzz	Date: June 26, 2009 @ 1:38 PM Republican cheats on wife. Democrat cheats on wife. How does one come over as worse than the other? Answer - Only in the eyes of the blind worshippers.
Mojosnake	Date: June 26, 2009 @ 7:42 PM here we go again .....
zedsalt	Date: June 27, 2009 @ 10:20 AM On 26th Jun 2012, ChillinBuzz said: Republican cheats on wife. Democrat cheats on wife. How does one come over as worse than the other? Answer - Only in the eyes of the blind worshippers. Anyone who has read my opinions here on the Clinton/Lewinsky "scandal" knows my views on the U.S. media's obsession with our politician's personal lives. That's right- ALL of our politicians, regardless of party affiliation There is one distinction I make, though, in my thinking about these things. While I think it falls short of making their personal lives any of our business, I can't help but notice that so often, it's the politicians who get elected/reelected on "socially conservative" issues (translation: legislating morality) who find themselves in trouble (Spitzer's anti-prostitution crusade leaps to mind). Oh, and...cough! choke!..."religious leaders"! I'll leave the latter's political aspirations and party affiliations to common knowledge, which...in this regard...I think is pretty accurate. It's the inaccuracy of common knowledge, though, that led me to my comment of June 25th, 9:38 AM. Horny Democrats and greedy Republicans- THAT'S what an unaffiliated voter like me is SUPPOSED to expect, right? Not Foleys, Craigs, etc. Not a Democratic first couple like the Clintons up to their tushies in dirty real estate dealings. The "common knowledge" is just wrong. Just like Hilbert's assertion that Republican politicians, when faced with this sort of scandal, always resign, and Democrats don't. I think that's basically the public perception both here and abroad, and it's simply not true. Look back at the pointless shitstorm around Clinton/Lewinsky: in Congress, the charge was being led by the Republican Speaker of the House who stepped down as Speaker, but didn't resign from office, when he was proven to be committing adultery WHILE going after Clinton. His replacement, however, DID resign when he, too, was exposed as an adulterer. You remember who replaced him? Gingrich was replaced by Livingston, who was replaced by...remember who? That's right: David Vitter, adult-baby-fantasy-prostitute-patron and Sen. Larry Craig's partner in trying to prevent legal Gay marriage (that one's a wash: Craig resigned, Vitter didn't and has announced his intentions to run in 2010).
ChillinBuzz	Date: June 30, 2009 @ 3:06 AM The "Do as I say, not as I do" attitude of politicians doesn't wash with me one bit. If they're going to represent certain morals and values, it seems highly hypocritical of them to not practice what they preach, regardless of which side of any government they sit in.

Post A Reply
From:	Guest	(Icons - Linking)
Post: